Results
The ATTACHMENT A items
will be heard on the following dates:
Planning Commission
7:00 P.M.,
Board of
HOLDOVER/RETURNED
APPLICATIONS will be heard on the date in the applications header.
The PC decisions/recommendations may be appealed
to the
An appeal may be made in person at the Current
Planning desk or by fax (702-455-3271). Call Current Planning (455-4314) to find out how to file an appeal.
Help in filling an appeal may be obtained from the Southwest Action
Network (SWAN). You can contact SWAN at:
702-837-0244 · 702-837-0255 (fax)
email: swan@lvswan.org
Note:
If you ctrl+click on the blue underlined text
it will take you to the detailed documents to explain the agenda item.
REGULAR
BUSINESS
1.
Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on
2.
Approve the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes. APPROVED
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
Enterprise Land Use Plan Update from
Comprehensive Planning (for possible action).
Tentative Schedule: Initial Open House: late September to October
Draft: March-April 2014
Before
the
Significant changes
under consideration.
o
Fewer land use categories based on intensity rather than use
o
New Land use categories could contain a mix of commercial and
residential
o
RNPs will remain a separate category
o
New land use categories are still under discussion.
o
Greater use flexibility within land use categories
o
Zoning process would determine project fit into an area.
o
Some zone districts could be eliminated
o
The TAB has questions about the timing of this
change.
·
Once the land use process reaches the first open house, the plan
structure should not be changed.
·
The TAB is will to work with the staff on this change.
The staff will meet with the TAB on a
regular basis may include workshop for land use.
ZONING
AGENDA:
H-1. NZC-0138-13
– DALEY FAMILY TRUST, ET AL:
Held by
the applicant until
AMENDED HOLDOVER
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Allow modifications to standard drawings for public street
sections;
3) Allow modified elevations (no longer required).
Generally located
on the north side of
H-2. VS-0139-13 – DALEY FAMILY TRUST, ET AL:
Held by the applicant until
HOLDOVER VACATE
1. VC-0420-13
– MENGELKAMP, ROBERT A. & ALEXANDRA A.:
APPROVE per staff “If Approved” conditions and,
Applicant must
comply with Title 30, R-2 standards.
VARIANCE to reduce the rear setback for a patio cover in conjunction with a single family residence on 0.1 acres
in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan
Area. Generally located on the north side of
This variance was reviewed by the staff using Title 29
standards which they are required to do.
In early February 2014, Title 29 will no longer apply to Pinnacle Peaks
Concept Plan area and be replaced by Title 30 (the current standard). This variance would not be required under
Title 30. The homeowners request meets
the Title 30 standards for the R-2 zone district.
2. WS-0417-13 – BALLARD LIVING TRUST:
APPROVE
per staff “If Approved” conditions
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce the
rear setback for a proposed single family residence on 0.5 acres in an R-E
(Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the south side of
The applicant submitted letters from the HOA and
neighboring property owner, stating they have no objection to the Waiver of
Development Standards. This project can
be built with a detached garage where the required setback would be 5 ft. The TAB opinion is the attached garage with an
11 ft. setback is a better option.
3. WS-0452-13 – HARMONY
APPROVE Waiver of Development Standards for lot #26
DENY Waiver of Development Standards for lot #39
Per staff comments.
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for modified street
improvements in accordance with
The TAB agrees with the Public Works analysis and
recommendations.
This request is to reduce the offset, on lots 26 and 39,
from proposed driveways to back of curb radius to a minimum of 3.3 feet where
Clark County Standards Drawings require 12 feet of off-set.
4. VS-0433-13 – PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC:
APPROVED
per staff conditions
VACATE
The TAB missed the opportunity to consistently recommend
the dedication of Agate. The TAB
recommended the Agate dedication on a previous application on the project. Due to the difference in conforming and
non-conforming zone change process, this project has been piecemealed through
the process. This make it difficult to
make consistent recommendations as each piece of land is added to the
project.
The
5. VS-0451-13 - HARMONY
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
TAB had questions on the vacation of
6. ZC-0422-13 – DONAL SERIES 3, LLC, ET AL:
APPROVE Zone Change to R-D and,
ADD conditions:
·
Comply with
Mountains Edge architectural, lighting, and landscape standards
·
Coordinate with the
This application is for a zone change without plans.
The TAB considered the following in recommendation R-D
zone district and conditions:
·The TAB and
·The applicant did not meet the developer obligation to show, through sound land use planning
practices and exceptional site and building design, that approval of a density
or intensity up to the maximum is warranted.
·The lack of plans does not
allow the TAB, PC or
·The property is surrounded by a
regional park and should have pedestrian access to the park
·It is an out parcel in
Mountains Edge area.
·The development when
accomplished should be consistent with Mountain Edge standards.
The developer was asking for
the maximum density allowed in the land use plan. They did not have any material to support the
request. The TAB opinion is R-D is an
appropriate conforming zone district when no plans are presented. There was a previous project proposed on this
property. The two conditions recommended
were discussed at a neighborhood meeting for that project. The TAB finds both discussed conditions
appropriate for this property.
7. ZC-0432-13 –
NO RECOMMENDATION
Motion to approve
the application per staff if approved conditions resulted in a 2-2 split vote
(Kapriva, Sweetin aye; Chestnut,
Motion
to approve zone change, deny waiver of development standards 1a, and approve
waivers of development standards 1b, 2, and 3 per staff if approved conditions
was withdrawn prior to a vote.
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Reduced setbacks;
2) Increased block wall height; and
3) Modified street standards in accordance with Clark County
Uniform Standard Drawings.
Generally located
on the southeast corner of
The TAB was in agreement on the zone change to R-D and
Waivers of Development Standards #2 and #3.
The disagreement leading to the no recommendation is on
Waiver of Development standards #1. The positions
were:
For
·
5 ft. setback has
been used in other R-2 developments
·
Desire not to force
the builder into two story home when all single story
homes are planned.
·
Wants the project to
move forward
·
The development has
all 10,000 ft. lots
Against
·
The entire project
requires setback waivers on all lots with the three models proposed.
·
The developer did
not design the lots to fit the intended product and meet the code requirements.
·
The developer has
requested lower standards to increase the number of lots.
·
Agreed with the
staff position that this is a self-imposed hardship
·
Developer did not meet
the criteria for Waiver of Development Standards
·
R-D developments are
planned for bigger lots with greater setback than R-2 projects to produce a
more open look.
·
Reduced setback in a
rural development is a bad precedent to set.
Two TAB members felt that it is poor design practice to
create a project that requires waivers on every lot when there are no physical
constraints. The rural neighborhoods are
intended to be more open (greater setbacks) than the suburban sub-division. The request waivers do not accomplish
this. Other developers are complying
with the standards. In the past, the TAB
has not recommended approval where waivers were applied to all the lots.
Due to the difference in conforming and non-conforming
zone change process, this project has been piecemealed through the approval process. The
The TAB missed the opportunity to consistently
recommend the dedication of Agate. The
TAB recommended the dedication of agate was a condition on a previous
allocation on the project.
8. ZC-0442-13 – LEWIS, THANH THI:
APPROVED per staff conditions and,
ADD
Current Planning condition:
·
Comply with
architectural color palette for Mountains Edge;
·
Snicker Street on
the diagram presented, an emergency access be provided
between the north and south sections.
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for modified street
improvements in accordance with
This is a well designed R-2 project where the lots are over
4,000 sq. ft. It includes additional
parking and some open space. It is a
good in fill.
The TAB made two recommendations. First is to use the Mountains Edge color palette
to help the project blend in with surround neighborhood. Second, create a second emergency access point
on
9. ZC-0450-13 – HARMONY
APPROVED per staff conditions
DESIGN REVIEW for a single family residential development on 5.0 acres
in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone.
Generally located on the
southwest corner of
10. ZC-0454-13 –
APPROVE REDUCED Zone Change to R-D: per staff
conditions,
ADD condition:
·
Comply with Mountains Edge lighting,
landscape and architectural standards
The TAB considered the following in recommendation R-D
zone district and conditions:
·The TAB and
·The applicant did not meet the developer obligation to show, through sound land use planning
practices and exceptional site and building design, that approval of a density
or intensity up to the maximum is warranted.
·The lack of plans does not
allow the TAB, PC or
·The property is in the
·The Residential Suburban
designation during the last major land use update did not consider the
·This property should be part of
the hillside transition to lower density.
·The development is abutting
Mountains Edge and should blend with their development standards.
The developer was asking for
the maximum density allowed in the land use plan. They did not have any material to support the
request. The applicant had a simple plot
plan that was not submitted with the application. The TAB opinion is R-D is an appropriate
conforming zone district when no plans are presented. In addition, the property is located 122 ft.
from the Hillside Ordinance area. This
property should be part of the transition to the 2 units per acre required in
the
This property abuts Mountains
Edge and should blend with the neighborhood to the east. The TAB added the condition for any project
to meet Mountains Edge standards.
During the last Major Land Use
Update this area was planned for Residential Suburban because the
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
1.
Update
on budget requests from prior fiscal year. (for possible action)
2.
Discuss
and take public input regarding capital budget requests for upcoming fiscal
year. (for possible action)
3.TAB to consider recommendation for a change to
Title 30.52.080.d.2 Improvement Requirements for a Minor Subdivision. (for
possible action)
A request from the traffic committee for the
TAB to make a recommendation on a RNP-1 exception to the following: 30.52.080.d.2 Improvement Requirements for a
Minor Subdivision.
Changed to read:
Within 660 feet of existing full off-site improvements, in any direction from
the parcel map, provided the parcel map has a street frontage of a nominal 300
feet, which shall include frontage on private streets. Except within or
abutting the RNP-1 overlay.
Continue to the next meeting. No action.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
1.A traffic hazard exists at the intersection of Jones and
Windmill. Request that public safety
look at the situation and see if traffic mitigation devices can be
installed. Overgrown landscaping is also
a problem.
2.Request for an update on the status of improvement of Rainbow
south of Blue Diamond to Starr.
3.Zoning items H-1 and H-2 on this
agenda have been on the agenda several times and held several times. Now held
to the August 28 TAB meeting. A new
developer has taken over the application with a new plan. It is not fair to the concerned neighbors who
have attended prior meetings and have expected to have the application publicly
vetted by now. The suggestion was made that
the applicant conduct a neighborhood meeting prior to the TAB hearing and an
indefinite hold until the new plans are ready.
ADJOURNMENT:
The statements, opinions and observations
expressed in this document are solely those of the author. The opinions stated in this document are not
the official position of any government board, organization or group. The project descriptions, ordinances
board/commission results are reproduced from publicly available Clark County
Records. This document may be freely distributed and reproduced as long as the
author’s content is not altered.
Additional comments maybe added.
Additional comments must be clearly attributed to the author of those
comments and published or reproduced with the document. The additional comments author’s affiliation
with any government board, organization or group must be clearly
identified. This attribution statement
must accompany any distribution of this document.
David
D. Chestnut, Sr.